541 replies to this topic

[Solar System]

How can they continue to justify their current product when they see these numbers?

[modlib]

Yeah, the numbers were awful for Thursday. Speaking of Campbell Brown, I bet she is laughing heartily at CNN's 7pm and 8pm ratings struggle. She asked to be moved to the 7pm timeslot and CNN refused. That was looking like a great idea - they will kill for her numbers at 7pm since OutFront is an unmitigated ratings disaster. It has to be what's hurting AC at 8pm. Will they stick with Burnett as long as they stuck with Brown? It seems to me that they can't afford to. This is a presidential election year and the general election has gotten underway - there is no excuse for these numbers since cable news should be getting a bump this year. In many ways, the primetime lineup defines the image of your channel because it is when most people tune in and they associate those anchors with the credibility of CNN. It hurts the CNN brand for some many people to reject your primetime lineup.

Personally, I liked Campbell Brown and was sorry to see her go but I understand that is how ratings work. CNN thought they could redeem themselves by bringing in CNBC's giggle box, Princess Erin Burnett - right after this country's worst financial crisis since the depression and on the verge of an economic collapse of Europe? Sure, that makes as much sense as hiring Liz Cheney to have her own show to discuss foreign affairs and cover our wars!

Their ratings slide is karmic justice.

[Solar System]

Modlib, your post had me cracking up. But even though we laugh, I know you feel it too, it really and truly is ashame when you see how far CNN has fallen.


You just have to wonder, how bad does it have to get before they stop the hemorrhaging? At this point, they can stop trying to regain second place in the ratings and start trying to figure out how not to be overtaken by their own sister network HLN.
I honestly and truly wonder what audience they are targeting? The one thing CNN does have going for them, when they do finally get their act together and again focus on "news," look how many of us are just waiting to tune back in.

[ginnyfan]

Every new change they make, in the morning or prime time, only leads to even worse ratings. I think they'll stick with this.

[Axl0706]

CNN really has to make some drastic changes soon. When you look at their ratings from last Wednsday, there's not one show that could remotely match the ratings on MSNBC. The hightest rated show between 5PM and midnight is TSR with barely 500.000 viewers. Burnett, Anderson and Morgan don't even get half as many viewers as their counterparts on MSNBC.

Burnett 272 - Matthews Replay 763
Cooper 395 - Ed 896
Morgan 482 - Maddow 1.118

Didn't Piers once say that he has been hired to bring in good numbers and that he will be judged by his results?

[newser]

Sheesh, look at yesterday's demo ratings, another trainwreck.

http://www.mediabist...il-26-2_b125243

I agree with you Axl0706 about the drastic changes, but the question is whether this management has any idea what to do or if they think anything needs to be done at all.

[kratos]

The way Fox News or MSNBC gets ratings is obvious. CNN is the breakingnews channel for non-regular folks

CNN has more reach every month than those two but far less who turn in every night to hear what they want to hear. Sure CNN could do better programs but ratings wouldnt compare even then with the current strategy

Edited by kratos, 28 April 2012 - 10:39 PM.

[modlib]

Given the conversations we've all had, this isn't surprising, but it is painful to see the raw brutal numbers...

http://tvbythenumber...o-years/131843/

[Solar System]

Woe is CNN is to put it mildly. Can you imagine how the morning meetings are? But then again, the problem with CNN, they think their programming is acceptable.

[newser]

August 2010 was the worst month for Larry King Live ever - the show attracted an average of 545k total viewers, which was a record low and only 149k in the 25-54 demo, the worst result since May 2000 (source: TV by the Numbers). I went through the numbers for April and guess what's the average for Piers Morgan Tonight (Mo-Fr basis, I took the numbers from daily reports posted on TV by the Numbers webpage)? 544k total and 152k in the demo. Maybe Piers should be fired before Burnett? The guy just hit a record low for the 9pm hour.

[excel99]

http://tvbythenumber...o-years/131843/

First time I've seen any numbers for when W1 was on CNN/US. Early Start is down 19% in total viewers in April compared to W1 a year ago, and 28% down in the demo - though the tougher competition from Fox may account for some of that

[newser]

Just to further explain the Piers Morgan Tonight calculations I posted above. I was looking at the average numbers from April 1 to April 30, but mediabistro has just posted a list of top cable news programs with different PMT figures (567 total/161 demo) - that's because for some reason their "April" is actually starting on March 26 and ending on April 27.

[alexcs]

http://tvbythenumber...o-years/131843/

First time I've seen any numbers for when W1 was on CNN/US. Early Start is down 19% in total viewers in April compared to W1 a year ago, and 28% down in the demo - though the tougher competition from Fox may account for some of that

CNN really need to worry about them numbers. I was particularly shocked by the dayside numbers - they seem to have lost ~100k viewers in 12 months, which is a substantial proportion. Maybe if they focused more on the NEWS and not on Music Monday, or the Political Pops, it would help!

Also it was very interesting to read this article.... UH-OH, CNN!

[newser]

Apples and oranges again. F&F is not competing with JK USA, Burnett or anything from CNN primetime, ergo the comparison is pointless. SpongeBob at 10 and 10.30am beats the entire Fox primetime as well.

[modlib]

The only good news to come from all these articles about CNN's epic decline in the ratings is that perhaps it is an indication that they see there is a problem. Yes, CNN execs, it is time to panic. The scary part is that if you look at May's ratings so far, it's looking to be worse than April.

http://www.allthings...5/cnn-fail.html

http://www.mediabist...ngs-low_b126142

Edited by modlib, 03 May 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[newser]

The scariest part is what Walton is saying. That guy is completely disconnected from reality.

Mr. Walton takes the long view on ratings. New programs, such as one starring former CNBC anchor Erin Burnett, have generated "a lot of internal energy and passion," Mr. Walton said in an interview. He adds: "Thus far, the ratings haven't indicated what I think will happen over time, which is that they will continue to grow." He also argues that the ratings on its flagship U.S. channel hardly matter.

...

"I've been here for a long time. And I enjoy what I do, and I compete and I plan to keep doing it for a while," Mr. Walton said in an interview.

There was a great line from one of the CNN employees in the first version of Stelter's article in NYT (it seems to be gone now): "We're so good at explaining why it's bad".

Edited by newser, 03 May 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[modlib]

Newser, that must be a clip from the WSJ article - I wasn't able to read all of that article because I am not a paid subscriber. Holy WOW this guy is disconnected from reality. Her ratings over the past months have fallen off a cliff. I am no expert in these things but that kind of trend doesn't indicate there will be a reversal. Walton is certifiably crazy.

Oh, and this idea that ratings don't matter for CNNUS? Yeah, he's totally full of sh!t.

One other thing... This now explains why CNNUS primetime seems disconnected from reality - clearly their management lives in a bubble. "Sometimes you have to get out of the bubble" says the OutFront ad - yeah, no irony there.

Edited by modlib, 03 May 2012 - 02:57 PM.

[newser]

I'm not a subscriber either, so I'm not sure how I got in if it should be behind a wall.

For anyone else having trouble seeing the article and if it's not against the Forum rules (if it is, delete it, sorry), here's the entire story:

By KEACH HAGEY

The last time there was a presidential election, CNN made television history by beating every other network in the ratings on election night.


It is shaping up to be a different story this year. CNN's two main rivals Fox News and MSNBC have gained viewers in the past year, compared with the same period in the 2008 presidential cycle, while CNN has lost them, according to Nielsen Media Research.

The hyperpartisan cable-TV culture of recent years hasn't been kind to the original cable news network. In prime time, MSNBC frequently has twice the total viewers of CNN and Fox News often has four times as many. CNN notes that it is doing better with viewers around the clock, which it says is more important. Over the past year, in around-the-clock viewership, CNN is ahead of MSNBC but still behind Fox News. But last month CNN had its worst full-day ratings—in both total viewers and the 25-54 age group advertisers love—since just before the Sept. 11 attacks of 2001.

CNN is owned by Time Warner Inc., MSNBC is a unit of Comcast Corp.'s NBCUniversal, and Fox News is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.

CNN still does well with major news events, be they the passing of pop stars or primary elections. Whitney Houston's death, combined with CNN's hosting of three Republican debates and a handful of primaries, helped CNN enjoy a rare ratings win over MSNBC in the 25-54 demographic in prime time in the first quarter.

"The world still knows to turn to CNN whenever a crisis erupts," said David Bohrman, the Current TV president who served as CNN's Washington bureau chief overseeing election coverage in 2008. "That is the brand. But CNN seems uncomfortable with the totality of the brand. They are constantly trying to figure out who they are when there is no crisis."

The fundamental problem is in prime time. In the year ending in March, Fox News had an average of 1,890,000 total viewers and 428,000 viewers in the 25-54 demographic during prime-time, while MSNBC had 784,000 total viewers and 241,000 viewers in the 25-54 demographic. CNN had an average of 711,000 total viewers and 234,000 viewers in the 25-54 demographic in prime time.
CNN's ratings weakness is putting a spotlight on Jim Walton, who has been president of CNN Worldwide, overseeing the network domestically and globally, since 2003, a period in which the network's flagship U.S. channel has fallen farther behind Fox.

Mr. Walton takes the long view on ratings. New programs, such as one starring former CNBC anchor Erin Burnett, have generated "a lot of internal energy and passion," Mr. Walton said in an interview. He adds: "Thus far, the ratings haven't indicated what I think will happen over time, which is that they will continue to grow."

He also argues that the ratings on its flagship U.S. channel hardly matter. The U.S. channel is just one of CNN's many media platforms, which include CNN International, CNN en Español, HLN and CNN.com.
"Keep in mind, the advertising revenue that we bring in for the prime-time revenues for CNN U.S. is less than 10% of the overall revenue" at CNN, Mr. Walton said.

The network's persistent weakness in prime time has contributed to the shake-ups of both the flagship U.S. cable channel's evening lineup and its executive ranks. In 2010, CNN fired Jon Klein, president of CNN/U.S., and divided his job among three executive vice presidents. So far, however, after program changes implemented by the new executives, CNN remains in third place in prime time.

Richard Parsons, during his stint as chief executive of Time Warner between 2002 and 2007, put pressure on Mr. Walton's boss, Turner Broadcasting chief executive Phil Kent, to replace Mr. Walton, say people familiar with the situation. Mr. Parsons questioned whether Mr. Walton was the right person for the job, the people say. Mr. Kent pushed back.

Mr. Kent denied the account, a spokesman for him said.

"I can confirm that there's a long list of people inside and outside the company who have raised their hand or been suggested to me. Who wouldn't want the job? CNN is an iconic brand with an amazing growth story, due in large part to the leadership of Jim Walton," Mr. Kent said.

Mr. Parsons declined to comment.

"I've been here for a long time. And I enjoy what I do, and I compete and I plan to keep doing it for a while," Mr. Walton said in an interview.

Time Warner's current CEO, Jeff Bewkes, is "clearly not satisfied" with CNN's recent ratings and is pushing management of both CNN and Turner "to come up with a plan to restore momentum" of CNN, said a Time Warner spokesman.

Time Warner executives also stress that ratings aren't the only measure of the channel's value, pointing to its reach online and overseas and its status as the outlet that viewers turn to when there is big news.
Still, the weak ratings haven't gone unnoticed by cable and satellite TV operators, which pay fees to carry the channel.

In 2009—seven years after Fox News surpassed CNN in the ratings—Fox News's per-subscriber fee surpassed CNN's, estimates research firm SNL Kagan. Partly as a result, between 2008 and 2011, Fox's cash flow, a measure of its profitability, jumped 76.6% to $887.5 million while CNN's went up 26.6% to $595.7 million, according to Kagan.

"If you've got weak ratings, it's leverage for us," one cable executive said.

Advertisers have also noticed. CNN has done "OK, not great" in its efforts to turn around its ratings, said Jason Maltby, a TV buyer at Mindshare, a unit of WPP PLC. "Most people would like to see ratings continue to go up, but I think more people who buy CNN understand that you buy it for total day, not just for prime time," he said. "We would all like to see them be more competitive in prime time, just like in the early morning."

—Martin Peers, Shalini Ramachandran and Suzanne Vranica contributed to this article.Martin Peers, Shalini Ramachandran and Suzanne Vranica contributed to this article.

Edited by newser, 03 May 2012 - 02:54 PM.

[modlib]

There was a great line from one of the CNN employees in the first version of Stelter's article in NYT (it seems to be gone now): "We're so good at explaining why it's bad".

That is a great line! Unfortunately, nowadays they are getting less good at that too.

[modlib]

Oh, great, thanks Newser for sharing the full WSJ article. I couldn't get passed the pay wall - lucky you!

Interesting what the ad exec said about buying for the total day not just primetime. Yes, but CNN's dayside numbers are dying too.